Response to Clive Keen, our newest expert on PSE: 5

[Response to Clive Keen from Militsa Doukogiannis:]

Upon reading the “opinion” piece by Nathan White entitled “Medieval French history is passé”, I was amused, angered and deeply saddened by the sheer lack in insight offered by Clive Keen. Several items struck me as noteworthy.

Firstly, I can not understand why we are engaging in an exhausting debate about whether we need a university that ‘trains the mind’ or a university that provides ‘applied education’. We need both. People need choices. Perhaps not everyone is ‘intellectually turned on’ by Shakespeare, but guess what? Not all of us are excited by the prospect of studying computer games technology or coaching science. And, guess what else? Not all employers strive to hire employees with only applied skills; many employers are willing to hire university graduates and train them. Why, Keen, you might ask? Because many employers want people who can critically analyze and problem solve. People who are fair minded, flexible and able to fully participate in office affairs and help provide solutions to problems, and be willing to compromise. People who spent their university careers learning how to learn (aka, training the mind). People who are resourceful, who want to learn, who ask questions and seek, what’s that word Keen…oh yeah, knowledge. Perhaps even for no other reason than for the fun of it.

Secondly, why is this issue being spun in such a way that it forces people to choose a side. You’re either for applied education and jobs, OR, you’re for free thought and, apparently, no jobs. It’s ridiculous. No one would benefit from a one size fits all institution that purports to be a university but really isn’t (not to be confused with a polytechnic as this term apparently renders an institution unsuccessful from the start; it has nothing to do with program offerings of course, or lack there of). Shhhh….maybe no one will notice. As long as we are creating illusions, why don’t we start calling nurses doctors to make up for the shortage of family doctors; after all what’s in a name. Right? Universities are not all about Shakespeare and Medieval French history; they teach other useful things like ethics and research and data collection and validation and leadership and accounting methods: the list goes on.

Proponents of the polytechnic would like the public to believe (this, by the way, is me offering opinion but spinning it as fact) that we need one institution to service the needs of the student base AND service the needs of the local business community who allegedly will be waiting in the sidelines to hire these graduates before they can put on their caps and gowns. The school will offer courses that are ever changing and responsive to the needs of the market.

Ummm….does this not mean that the labour force will be required to be equally responsive to a changing market place? If we train people in ONE area, say disaster management for example, and the market becomes saturated with potential recruits in this area, are the unemployed going to be able to adapt their training, their skill set, to another vocation. Maybe, I don’t know, just throwing it out there. But, I would think it would be quite expensive to retrain every time the market changes, unless of course the person who studied disaster management can apply these skills as a police officer. What’s that phrase our Premier likes to talk about? Reducing student debt….oh yeah, this should be helpful in accomplishing this goal.

Unless, maybe the market doesn’t change as rapidly as we are being told and it’s really not an issue after all and it’s really about local business interests getting control of our educational institutions so that the public purse can help finance business objectives. Oh you boys and your spin doctoring! Maybe that’s a course this new institution can add to the curriculum, along side “master spinning of opinion into fact” – perhaps, that could be a whole graduate program!

Thirdly, I find it outrageous that we have a community college that has been neglected and under funded for years by the same government who is now purporting to be the savior of post secondary education, a proponent of doing what’s right for the students (by apparently ensuring them they are trained for a market relevant job whether they want the job or not). Why has it become the problem of the university to fix what ails the community college system? What does the university have to do with any of this discussion? Is it the fact that the university, without government interference, has done very well with limited resources (despite what you are being told) and the government is seeking to leach off this success to turn the community college around?

Offer minor cosmetic surgery to the university – improve the funding formula, improve transferability of credits between campuses and institutions, help reduce student debt – and provide major reconstructive surgery to the community college. I would bet money the community college would embrace the opportunity to offer courses in animation technology and police studies among others proposed by Keen.

Hey, here’s an economical solution: why not free the community college from the claws of government, co-locate the campus on Tucker Park, and call it a day? Besides, if we are all honest, how much could it realistically cost to implement all the crazy ideas being tossed out there? Oh yeah, no one has offered any budgetary data on the subject. It reminds me of my 12 year old step son talking about the Mercedes he’s going to buy when he’s 16. He sounds convincing that his dream will manifest when he talks about it, but when it comes right down it to, there is just no financing available to minors.

Militsa Doukogiannis

[This letter was sent to the Telegraph-Journal.]